Re: [apps-discuss] font/*

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> On 2011/11/11 1:23, Ned Freed wrote:

> >> On 2011/11/10 13:06, Ned Freed wrote:

> >> > In practice the issue of what to register where has never been much
> >> of a
> >> > problem. Speaking now as media types reviewer, I have not infrequently
> >> > pushed
> >> > back on top-level type choices, usually successfully and always
> >> amicably.
> >
> >> Do you know of any examples? This could help Dave with the general list
> >> of criteria that he wants to develop.
> >
> > I can't get into specifics without talking about the content of
> > preliminary registration requests, which I try not to do. I can say that
> > the most common one has been someone asking for application when image or
> > video would be more appropriate.
> >
> > The most common name change I request, however, is the addition of +xml.

> Okay. This is about change from one existing top-level type to another,
> and about tweaking the minor type name with a suffix.

Understood. Both things happen. As I said, the most common top level change
is from application to image or video. Next up would probably moves from
text to application, but come to think of it I haven't have one of those
in a while.

> Out of the context
> of the discussion, I thought that you were speaking about new top-level
> types when you wrote "I have not infrequently pushed back on top-level
> type choices", but now I see that that's not a necessary interpretation.

I was simply noting that the most common change isn't a top-level change, but
rather the addition of +xml. My apologies if that was confusing.

				Ned